Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS

[John Adams <jna () retina net>]

Really the best thing to do is to just leave SORBS alone.

The more idiotic bans they put into place with demands for "$50 per IP
per incident", the less trustworthy of an RBL they become.

Most large network operations will end up ignoring them, or if they do
use the data from their RBL, they will take it at a far lower metric
in their overall anti-spam equasion.

-j

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Bret Clark <bclark () spectraaccess com> wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > I kinda-sortta feel like many others who have posted here.  This is a mail
> > thing, not netops.  Grow a pair and post under your own name.  Is it even
> > on-topic for NANOG?  Etc.
> >
> > I even started typing a message to the effect of: "even though I don't
> > like SORBS, they should be allowed to publish a list and let others do as
> > they please".  But then I realized, that is all this anonymous person is
> > asking.  Or at least it could be.
> >
> > If "iHate SORBS" wants to create a (another?) list of prefixes which
> > should not be routed, and put SORBS on it, he (she?) should be allowed, just
> > as SORBS should be allowed to have a list of mail servers SORBS doesn't
> > like.  Then each operator can decide whether to implement a block based on
> > the list or not.  Your network, your decision.
> >
> > Of course, I fully expect no one to implement the block.  But that is no
> > reason to deny the ability to create the list.
> >
> > Now, I feel like quoting Pastor Niemöller so we can end this thread. :)
>
> Not to mention it's bad enough with congress trying to pass laws to make us
> network operators police the Internet, I don't need to police SORBS on top
> of it!
> Bret